Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Politics

Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage Cases, Including California’s Prop 8

Dec. 7, 2012 3:23pm Madeleine Morgenstern

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will take up California’s ban on same-sex marriage, a case that could give the justices the chance to rule on whether gay Americans have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.

The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state’s gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California’s Supreme Court.

The court also will decide whether Congress can deprive legally married gay couples of federal benefits otherwise available to married people. A provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act limits a range of health and pension benefits, as well as favorable tax treatment, to heterosexual couples.

The cases probably will be argued in March, with decisions expected by late June.

Gay marriage is legal, or will be soon, in nine states – Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington – and the District of Columbia. Federal courts in California have struck down the state’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but that ruling has not taken effect while the issue is being appealed.

Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington approved gay marriage earlier this month.

But 31 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. North Carolina was the most recent example in May. In Minnesota earlier this month, voters defeated a proposal to enshrine a ban on gay marriage in that state’s constitution.

The biggest potential issue before the justices comes in the dispute over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on gay marriage that voters adopted in 2008 after the state Supreme Court ruled that gay Californians could marry. The case could allow the justices to decide whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection means that the right to marriage cannot be limited to heterosexuals.

A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages. A ruling that upheld California’s ban would be a setback for gay marriage proponents in the nation’s largest state, although it would leave open the state-by-state effort to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.

The larger constitutional issue almost certainly will be presented to the court, but the justices would not necessarily have to rule on it.

The other issue the high court will take on involves a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act, known by its acronym DOMA, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of deciding who can receive a range of federal benefits.

Four federal district courts and two appeals courts struck down the provision.

The justices chose for their review the case of 83-year-old Edith Windsor, who sued to challenge a $363,000 federal estate tax bill after her partner of 44 years died in 2009.

Windsor, who goes by Edie, married Thea Spyer in 2007 after doctors told them that Spyer would not live much longer. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years. Spyer left everything she had to Windsor.

There is no dispute that if Windsor had been married to a man, her estate tax bill would have been $0.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York agreed with a district judge that the provision of DOMA deprived Windsor of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

This post has been updated.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (137)

schroeder123
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:54pm
I don’t walk down the street singing I’m heterosexual, and making an ass of my self.

Your cheating if you have a child. mmm ?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:29pm
  what? what are you talking about?
  
  Report this comment
- Pantloadian
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 11:12pm
  Gun envy
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:52pm
“A decision in favor of gay marriage could set a national rule and overturn every state constitutional provision and law banning same-sex marriages.”
Which would be, just DELIGHTFUL.
Log in to ReplyReply
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:15pm
  If opposition to same-sex marriage is bigoted by nature, as you seem to stupidly think, that means that virtually everybody who has ever lived is a hateful bigot, including the greatest minds, artists, thinkers, philosophers, statesmen, saints, religious leaders and humanitarians that the world has ever produced, including Christ himself.
  I pity you if that helps.
  
  Report this comment
Psychosis
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:49pm
what business is it of the government who i love ?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Nurse Snow
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:03pm
  The government only wants you to love them. This issue has nothing to do with love.
  
  It also has nothing to do with your right to marry. You are allowed to marry anyone currently in the state parameters for partners.
  
  This issue has to do with homosexuals seeking to add another “partner” category to the mix.
  
  I don’t understand why homosexuals aren’t creating their own institution in lieu of marriage. That’s how I know part of the goal is to assault the tradition of marriage, watering it down by making it “unspecial”.
  
  Report this comment
- yeahook
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:25pm
  Christians and even Jews did not invent marriage. The degree to which you’ll bend your logic over backwards to involve yourself in someone else’s life is disgusting.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc33
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:33pm
  Nurse snow. Straight people have been doing a pretty fine job of “assaulting the tradition of marriage, watering it down by making it ‘unspecial” all by themselves. and as for creating their own separate union. That would be fine if not for 2 things. those unions are not recognized by most states, so there goes health insurance for your partner, hospital visitation, life insurance, etc etc. and secondly the whole separate but equal thing doesn’t really fly in the country anymore.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 7:50pm
  Keaton – Then why aren’t you supporting incest, polygamy, polyandry, and other alternative forms of marriage, hypocrite? They can’t get all of those benefits either.
  
  Report this comment
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:24pm
  Just because their is divorce, is not a legitimate reason we need men to marry men to “fix” marriage.
  Labeling marital failures the failures of straight people is asinine – it’s like labeling the crime problem the fault of minorities. It’s xenophobic. Marital problems, like crimes, are the failures of individuals, not group members. Heterosexuality isn’t the problem with marriage. People who get involved with the wrong people, make bad decisions, and act badly toward one another are the problem.
  
  Second, the implication here is that we need men to marry men and women to marry women to “fix” marriage. This is idiocy. Institutions aren’t fixed by changing the definitions of the institutions.
  
  Report this comment
hauschild
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:49pm
Wow, exciting stuff, folks!

I can’t wait to be told again that it isn’t the court’s job to decide such matters, but rather the will of the people. So, based on what Roberts wrote after he upheld Marxist Care, the same ruling should be expected here, right?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:02pm
  Individual rights should never be left to a popular vote. We are not a democracy but a constitution republic that enshrines the principal that minority groups have equal protection under the law.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:09pm
  ENCIN: Yes. Someday white will need the NAAWP to protect their rights and, of course, establish the White Caucus ! So many of our Trolls have already stated that we are ” history.” Better get organized !
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 10:02pm
  Hmmmm you only admit we are a constituionl republic when the majority go against your views.
  
  I hope the supreme court rules with the 10th ammendment and leaves the decisions up to the states. THAT is where the majority of policy must take place, bottum up. Why someone would oppose that, I don’t know.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 8, 2012 at 2:09pm
  @The_Cabrito_Goat I see your 10th Amendment and raise your the 14th’s equal protection. A basic right of an individual is not something for the majority to vote on or to be granted by the whims of a legislature.
  
  Report this comment
Pauln
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:45pm
That proposition and many others have been voted against many times through the years in California, however, there is always some judge that invalidates it. This has been the case for years, and will make you question, what difference that is make for the voters to decide, if judges still do as they please or is convenient according to their own agenda. Who or how do you stop this people from disregarding what the whole state has voted against?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:54pm
  Some things are beyond the majority’s power to decide–like your right not to be enslaved, or murdered, regardless of how large a majority were to vote to do such a thing to you.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:04pm
  Third: How about when the administration/ congress establishes policies or regulations which bankrupt the economy ? How can a citizen be protected from that damage ?
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:36pm
  @BARBER2
  Well get back to me when that happens.
  
  If your problem is with the mortgage derivatives market boom and bust, then your problem is with capitalism, specifically conservative laissez-faire financial policy bud.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:59pm
  “capitalism, specifically conservative laissez-faire financial policy”
  which would be just DELIGHTFUL
  
  Report this comment
- donsfirstwife
  Posted on December 21, 2012 at 11:06am
  I can hardly wait until California falls off into the ocean. Will solve a lot of the country’s problems.
  
  Report this comment
All Pro
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:45pm
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;10 –between Citizens of different States, –between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Article IV
Section 2
1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

I disagree with the life style but it is their choice and their RIGHT.
Social conservatives are going to lose this one. Next up, federal drug laws.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Personalforrest
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:39pm
If our countries dictators do pass through same sex marriage as legal how will this affect the churches that still are against homosexuality and refuse to perform such marriages? My guess is that they’ll loose their tax exempt status and bit by bit, freedom of religion is taken away.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- neverending
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:46pm
  My guess is when they refuse to marry gays in their church lawsuits will fly!
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:47pm
  “how will this affect the churches that still are against homosexuality and refuse to perform such marriages? ”
  
  Not at all. A religious ceremony is not necessary for recognized marriage.
  
  If you have any examples of churches being sued in states that allow gay marriage, please share them. I’m always willing to learn more.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:49pm
  And your guess will be wrong. Just another scare tacit and lie of the right used to deny equal protection all Americans.
  
  Report this comment
- title_of_liberty
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:28pm
  That is a very scary thought. However I’m not sure taking away the tax-exempt status would have that effect. Here is an awesome video about separation of church and state. It’s really good and he starts talking about what taking away the tax exempt status would do at 4:04
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Hy306pGmU
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 10:27pm
  Churches refuse to marry couples all the time. Catholics are refused if they don’t have proper annulment of previous marriage, and often if the non-catholic partner won’t pledge to raise the children in the faith. They can do that legally. Churcheswon’t be forced to marry anyone. States however, are bound by any interpretation of the 14th Amendment that the SC hands down.
  
  Report this comment
DarkestbeforeDawn
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:27pm
Since the democrats want to do away with tax deductions, if the SCOTUS grants homosexuals the right to get married, they should be against giving them tax breaks. This leads me to wonder, without the tax breaks and other married benefits would they still want care about their forming a legal union? I hear a lot more about homosexuals complaining about the legal and benefit rights they are missing out on then how they want to show their everlasting love and devotion to one another.

I also have to wonder if they will be so thrilled with the legal marriage when they get to join in the joyous fun of divorce. Hate. Resentment. Splitting all your stuff. Nasty custody battles. Court ordered alimony and child support payments. I bet they won’t find the court system they love to run to so much fun then.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
JACKTHETOAD
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:13pm
Will somebody PLEASE throw a bucket of cold water on Kagen and Sotomayor so they can make a ruling? If you need a crowbar, then use one.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- donsfirstwife
  Posted on December 21, 2012 at 11:13am
  Those two should never have been approved to become Supreme Court Justices, given their involvment in previous things like the writing of that awful Obamacare debacle. Kagan wants foreign law to be a huge influence in the way our own written laws are enforced. Both seem to be pretty much anti-American.
  
  Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:04pm
.
How will this case be decided? Poking Behind or Lickety Split either way stright people loose…..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PapaPegasus
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:14pm
  Not that anyone of you far right people will care, but DOMA means something totally different to people like me. I am a conservative by definition, with the exception that I disagree with the stance that gays should not be allowed to marry and have the same rights as same sex couples. Why?
  
  My brother, sisters, and I were adopted by my gay uncle and his partner (now going on 40 years faithfully together) when my parents died at a young age. They are the most loving, conservative people I know. All of us children were cared for and nurtured. Yes, all of us turned out heterosexual. All of us are well adjusted, contributing members of society. As a matter of fact, myself and my oldest sister are active duty Army, career Soldiers. My brother is a musician, and my youngest sister is a mother of three, and manages a major restaurant chain.
  
  In a society that turns a blind eye to same sex couples who live with each other without being married, why do we hate good people who want to be married that are of the same sex?
  
  Why do we care what happens in other peoples’ lives as long as they are within the bounds of the constitution in their daily practices? My adoptive parents deserve to be married. They have supported each other for 40 years, through college, through their careers, (one is a retired RN, the other a school teacher), so why can’t they claim the other as next of kin and have benefits for each other?
  
  It is just plain wrong. Wrong.
  
  Now let’s hear some homopho
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:20pm
  How do straight people lose, what right will be infringe of making sure all American enjoy equal protection under the law.
  
  Report this comment
- TommyGuns
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:29pm
  Just how do straight people lose if same sex couples are allowed to marry? Every argument I’ve heard by the homophobes borders on the silly. For example, since more than 50% of straight marriages end up in divorce, how can two men or two women getting married cheapen that? And just how does the granting of equal rights to one group automatically deny those same rights to another? If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then I suppose it logically follows that only women of child bearing ability should be allowed to marry, and that couples choosing to marry should sign a pledge under penalty of perjury and fine and imprisonment that they are only getting married in order to have children. Then, too, I would suppose that we must outlaw abortion and contraception for married folks altogether, and make sure that granny cannot marry her friend from the retirement home because that would surely cheapen the marriages of the younger people.
  
  I don’t know if being gay is a genetic trait, a genetic predisposition, or simply the act of two people expressing their love for one another. I’m gay, always have been, and a former Marine who fought for your right to be a bigot. I’m also someone who is madly and passionately in love with my partner of many years, and would dearly love to marry him one day, simply to enjoy the same benefits that you and your unlucky spouse are privileged to enjoy.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:31pm
  @Spank
  
  “either way stright people loose…..”
  
  Unless you expect their ruling to say that gay men can sneak up from behind you and rape you, I doubt any ruling here will make straight (or stright) people loose.
  
  Oh, you meant lose?
  
  No, that doesn’t make much sense either. The only thing there is to lose is states’ rights and their ability to decide for themselves what does or does not constitute marriage. I personally have no issue with repealing DOMA though, as it’s the federal government sticking its nose into matters that it should have no authority over.
  
  Report this comment
- JACKTHETOAD
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:32pm
  No homophobia from me. I’m not afraid for one, and for two, let them go. Just don’t let them use the word “MARRAIGE” or adopt. That’s simple enough.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:33pm
  Encinom, easy solution. Get government out of the marriage business. You should be able to leave whatever you want to whomever you want, without a tax. Can mothers marry sons, fathers marry daughters, man marry many women, woman marry many men… ?
  
  Fact is, there is only one union that is biologically required.
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:45pm
  TOMMYGUNS
  The heterophobes have not been getting married long enough to create divorce statistics.
  
  Report this comment
- Silvertruth
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:46pm
  Oddly, I’m with “The_Jerk” on this one. Government should be completely out of the marriage business. It should only deal with people as individuals.
  
  That would have dramatic ramifications, but after all the **** pulling, we’d have a better, fairer, and more rational government. Marriage issues should be strictly cultural, not legal or governmental.
  
  If you have to have it, asian nations with their registered households has a far more rational approach. You sign into and out of a family roster, make up of the ‘family’ is irrelevant. It’s pretty simple.
  
  Report this comment
- SpankDaMonkey
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:11pm
  .
  The Baby Jesus said don’t put that in your mouth…….
  
  LGBT&M should be put down just like rabid animals for the good of the planet……
  
  This will help curb the man made global warming……….
  
  Report this comment
- PapaPegasus
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:20pm
  @Spank
  
  Really? Put down like rabid animals? You really should consider mental health treatment. I fear for you, the members of your immediate family, and your entire community that you think the way you do.
  
  Let someone try to harm my two dads and I will put a 45 right through their damn skull. You can’t be serious.
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:24pm
  @ Tommyguns
  
  You and anyone else who wishes can read up on the Nevada judge’s ruling here http://www.adfmedia.org/files/SandovalDecision.pdf that for the most part states why I am against same-sex marriage. It’s interesting how I and a state judge might think so much alike. :P (half kidding)
  
  Really though, I’m so glad to see that not all of our court system has stopped obeying the law or lost all common sense.
  
  What has not been addressed or not adressed well in this ruling, I’ll also list:
  1. Same-sex marriage legalization is a direct threat to religious freedom
  2. Redefining marriages opens the door to redefining it in any way conceivable, which breaks down the structure of society. That indeed has already been happening with the decay of marriage in the first place, and it will not help, in fact will hurt, society and stable family structure further. A few successful cases is not justification enough for the amount of chaos that will (and already is) accompany it.
  3. Relating, society’s orderly structure in regards to gender will be and already is being affected, thus young girls were kicked out of their locker room rather than “discriminate” against a naked 45 year old man.
  4. Arguing “we’re born that way,” opens up the door for any sociopath to make the same argument, plus a gay rights group themselves argue the opposite.
  5. Parental freedom to raise our children as we see fit will be and already has been threatened in California and other states.
  
  Report this comment
- PapaPegasus
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:44pm
  @TeresaJ
  
  So redefining marriage will lead to society breaking down? How about cigarettes? Gambling? Strip clubs? Pornography? Alcohol? Before we keep people from legalizing their love for one another we have a lot more things to worry about. Fact is, nearly every gay or lesbian person I know has stayed in a committed relationship, much longer than all of the heterosexual people in my life.
  
  What you are writing about is pure fear and not knowing the people you fear. For every flaming queen out there you see in the media, there are 10 conservative, well educated, contributing members of society who aren’t like that. I’m not speaking from a bubble either. I’ve traveled the world twice over and experienced other cultures. None is as fearful of gays and lesbians than ours. Most other societies just go on with lives, ours is the one that hates so much. (No, I’m not a progressive, liberal, granola hippy.)
  
  Report this comment
- TeresaJ
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:21pm
  @PapaPegasus
  
  If you are reading hate out of what I just said, are you quite sure you have been raised with stability? There is nothing hateful about being logical, or careful. Those other societies you speak of, they are doing well, yes? No, they are not. The world economy isn’t in much more of a better state than we are. Yes, the state of society directly affects the economy, along with everyone’s freedom.
  
  Of course gambling, strip clubs and the like harm society, and yes, I wish people would voluntarily give them up. That isn’t something anyone can force anyone to do. In the past however, it has been banned from some places to promote a healthy environment for families. Arguing that same-sex marriage should be legal because society is already messed up is hardly an argument. Only turning back to God with repentance for our sin will save America. I’m not so sure that will happen, but there is always a chance for redemption.
  
  I don’t think you are likely to listen to anything I say. You don’t seem to have read the report I gave either. So I’m not sure discussion with you would be fruitful.
  
  Report this comment
- PapaPegasus
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 8:26pm
  @TeresaJ
  
  Yes I will listen. No, I’m not advocating gay marriage just because society is already messed up. When will you holier than though bible thumpers stop trying to legislate your morality on the rest of us? Yes, there is hate in what you write. It is thinly disguised as Christianity. You dare to throw up God to make your hate seem like the moral norm. Not only will conservatives like you continue to help the Republican party lose elections, your type will be the ones crucifying gays when the end times come, which I am sure you pray for daily.
  
  Report this comment
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:32pm
  Regrettably, many in the militant homosexualist movement interpret any ideological straying from them as hatred or bigotry. Whether this is through mendacity or through hysterical touchiness, I do not know or care. Either way it does not reflect well on their movement, and is a sign of detachment from reality. It leads to an unwillingness to seriously engage with the opposition, instead only unfairly demonizing them. Wallowing in their own status as a victim, does not promote open mindedness or tolerance.
  THe ssm zealots that parade around and rant hate and homophobia at every turn purposefully distort the true nature of the issue, and such a person is trapped in their own biases and bigotry.
  
  Report this comment
ClaudeRains
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:02pm
Now that “Justice” Roberts has shown his liberal leanings it’s fairly easy to see which way this decision is going to end up.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- JACKTHETOAD
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:09pm
  Liberal LEANINGS? The bastard sold us down the river!
  
  Report this comment
- neverending
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:45pm
  I am sure he is more then happy to take the case so he can once again provide a big thrilling win for barry boy.
  
  Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:58pm
I still can’t find in the Constitution where SCOTUS is empowered to declare ANYTHING Constitutional or un-Constitutional. Maybe I don’t have the correct secret decoder ring, or they can read the invisible ink that’s not on my copy of it. It *can* rule on appellate cases, but on the merits of the case itself (just as a federal judge would do) as the final ruling on the case, but there’s no power that I see granted that implies they can declare something Constitutional or not. My Constitution must be broke.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:08pm
  supreme court has usurped the power that used to belong to the states. And unfortunately, they have become a rubber-stamp for anything the federal govt wants to do
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:19pm
  @Soy
  
  Exactly. It’s mind numbing to me that so many parrot the SCOTUS lie as if it were received wisdom handed down from on high.
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:19pm
  The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional and what isn’t because somebody has to do it. If not them then who, you? If nobody decides, what protection would any of us have from obviously unconstitutional laws? Do you really want then all to remain in effect until the public becomes sufficiently informed and motivated to replace enough legislators to repeal them? The Supreme Court “usurped” this power in 1803, so most of us accept that the ship has pretty much sailed on this one.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:37pm
  It really doesn’t matter anymore. The State has already determined you are property via Obamacare. Forcing association with deviant sexual behaviors will further break the resistance any have towards State rule. It is unlikely the court will rule in favor of the majority of States, for State sovereignty must be wiped out, and the supremacy of the District of Columbia reiterated, solidified, and codified. This is the new America. Bend knee to the east, and the masters in Washington.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:37pm
  @Jefferson
  
  “I still can’t find in the Constitution where SCOTUS is empowered to declare ANYTHING Constitutional or un-Constitutional.”
  
  This is where you and I likely diverge (one of the few topics about states’ rights, the courts, and the Constitution, most likely). While not specifically outlined in the Constitution, I think that constitutional arbitration must indeed rest with the SCotUS. If they do not have that ability, the courts are in effect useless because their rulings are always capable of being outvoted by Congress. If that’s the case, why have a court system at all? Why vote for justices? And if Congress abuses their power, who can call their actions unconstitutional or illegal?
  
  As is, the court rulings are still without teeth. The SCotUS doesn’t head the military like the president. They don’t have power over budget matters or laws like the legislative branch. The other branches can (and at times, have) ignored the court.
  
  But our country has relied on the idea of judicial review for over 200 years. It’s not a new concept, nor a perfect one, but it’s one that works better than any alternative.
  
  Report this comment
- RIGHT_WHERE_IT_HURTS
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:59pm
  There ARE no ‘unconstitutional laws’ Chet. It’s perfect the way it stands. You’re full of it, as usual Just go away..
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:00pm
  It’s called “Marbury v. Madison”–look it up. If they DIDN’T have the power of judicial review, for what purpose would they exist? The fact of the matter is that by being empowered to decide the law’s application to cases before them, they de facto have the power of judicial review–you can’t say “the law makes ‘x’ the result” in ONE case, without saying it causes the SAME result in all similar cases (at least, you can’t without discarding some of the features of law, namely consistency and stability, that most people consider important). I guess technically you COULD do that, but people tend to want at least the EFFORT of attempting to make like cases have like outcomes under the same law (you know, logical consistency).
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 6:41pm
  RIGHT_WHERE_IT_HURTS
  There ARE no ‘unconstitutional laws’ Chet. It’s perfect the way it stands.
  
  What’s perfect, the Constitution? Whether that’s true or not, the Constitution itself is by definition constitutional, so people who are able to read will have understood that’s not what I was talking about. Unconstitutional laws are acts of Congress that violate the principles of the Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 3:13pm
  Encinmoron,
  
  The problem with the horribly over used racial analogy is its power comes from mere analogy. The problem with analogy is it is exactly that: an analogy.
  
  Its weight raises and falls on the strength of the analogy. Courts have been quick to dismiss this characterization of marriage law with racial segregation.
  
  The point of anti—miscegenation laws were to keep the races apart. No one would seriously argue that that is the point of marriage law. Quite the opposite, the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.
  
  Note this quick rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving.
  
  “[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.”
  
  Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:52pm
“… same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California’s Supreme Court.”

Herein is the problem. Courts shouldn’t be granting anything. Legislators legislate. Courts judge.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- usedCZARsalesman
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:02pm
  JERK, since the election you and I have been seeing eye to eye on virtually everything…I wonder why that is
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:35pm
  I agree, it should be a State’s Right issue where the people of the state vote on it. Of course, that means nothing in California, where same-sex marriage was voted down at least two times.
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:06pm
  USED: Do not bring up the subject of ” the Jews.” He loses it on that one !
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:15pm
  Jerk. Are you having a good day or bad :) If you keep it up you will have to change your name. The-Truth
  
  Report this comment
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:44pm
  No mention of marriage in the Constitution. Equal opportunity doesn’t mean equal outcome. Everyone already has the opportunity to get married if they qualify: one consenting unrelated male, one consenting unrelated female. Simple.
  
  Nor does “pursuit of happiness” mean equal outcome. My business may fail, my competitor’s business may succeed. We both pursued happiness, we both had equal opportunity. That’s reality. Not everyone gets a trophy, nor should they.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 8, 2012 at 2:14pm
  barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:44pm
  No mention of marriage in the Constitution. Equal opportunity doesn’t mean equal outcome. Everyone already has the opportunity to get married if they qualify: one consenting unrelated male, one consenting unrelated female. Simple.
  ___________________
  That is the same bigotted argument used against the individuals in Loving v. Va. Everyone can marry, just as long as it was within the same race.
  
  Sorry, but Equal Protection, if it means anything means that indivudal are treat as full citizens, with rights not limited because of the religious views of others.
  
  Report this comment
title_of_liberty
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:40pm
This could end very badly.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- neverending
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:00pm
  And probably will.
  
  Report this comment
- P8riot
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:42pm
  Agreed. America will be very hard to recognize soon if this keeps up.
  
  Report this comment
- TOMSERVO
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:39pm
  I know, right? What if they put their gayness on you!
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 7:53pm
  Tomservo – There’s no proof that homosexuality is born that way.
  
  Report this comment
ranepowel
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:38pm
Well, at least when they vote in favor of striking DOMA down we can move onto other topics. No way they are going to vote that congress can define marriage. Not this team of justices. If they gave to Obamacare they aren’t going to stand up for DOMA.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Fubared
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:56pm
  Didn’t the peeps of Kali say no, in like a total democratic way only to have some bloated %1 ers say they knew better than a mere consensus vote? What is the point of a vote when your betters say otherwise? How soon before the lgblt crowd can procreate? Civil unions could suffice, but nooo, they want it all as all small special groups are more important that anything else. Yes, the b in lgblt is for bacon. Say special with a lisp for extra points.
  
  Report this comment
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:37pm
  “President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage less than 48 hours after the Washington Post reported that prominent political donors were threatening to withhold donations over the president’s position on gay rights.”
  “The Washington Post noted on Tuesday that roughly 20 percent of Obama top campaign bundlers—who are responsible for arranging $500,000 and up—“publicly identified themselves as gay.”
  Obama’s announcement fits a pattern of changing positions on major issues for what appear to be financially motivated reasons.”
  
  What a surprise. Your Fearless Reader is an immoral sell-out.
  
  Report this comment
P8riot
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:38pm
America is changing so quickly my head is spinning. I hate to be negative, but I just can’t see SCOTUS doing the right thing next year and keeping this a State issue and listening the will of the people through the ballot box.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ResistSocialism
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:41pm
  Exactly, expect the worst. They to have lost their mind.
  
  Report this comment
- title_of_liberty
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:46pm
  Exactly. It doesn’t matter that a majority of the states have constitutional amendments banning it, very soon it will be everywhere, compliments of the Supreme Court.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:53pm
  We are being ruled by black robed thugs. They’re time is coming.
  
  Report this comment
- TOMSERVO
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:44pm
  “Their” time. Also, creepy.
  
  Report this comment
- donsfirstwife
  Posted on December 21, 2012 at 11:32am
  The real Supreme Justice is watching and He is not happy. If the Bible were read by legislators and judges we’d be better off. God is withholding His blessings on our country for our stupid behavior. Maybe the gay folks (why they stole that word is beyond me) would quietly go about their ‘business’ if there were absolutely no tax breaks or any other benefits that they deem worth chasing.
  
  Report this comment
ArmedAndReallyPissed
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:38pm
This is what some ( if not all ) people should be getting upset about, not Ellen and JC Penney. This is a waste of money and resources and a subject that won’t go away. This stupid war is fought in different States at different times, year after year.
This stupid subject of Same Sex Marriage needs to be decided on once and forever and never brought up again. ( and i say MARRIAGE is between one Man and one Woman ). How many years has this been going on ? Enough already.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Charles_Almon
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:38pm
Seems that the liberals don’t like it when a majority votes against their agenda as was done with Prop 8 in California.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- usedCZARsalesman
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:08pm
  That’s the Left for you! When they get the majority vote its “the will of the people” and should never be infringed upon. When the majority is against them, it’s because we’re all a bunch of bigots and racists and we should simply be overruled
  
  Report this comment
- barber2
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:02pm
  USED: Excellent analysis of how the Left uses the system to abuse/ obstruct/ the system ( oh, they call it ” change” ) How about when states pass laws which oppose federal laws ? Colorado and Washington and marijuana . Think that will cause a nice mess ?
  
  Report this comment
ResistSocialism
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:35pm
They are all ****

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- title_of_liberty
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:03pm
  *** ***** **** *** ***! *** *** ** *** ******* ***** ****** **************!!!!!!
  It’s quite satisfying to repeatedly hit the asterisk key, thanks resistsocialism! :)
  
  Report this comment
encinom
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:33pm
Roberts is looking to have a legacy of being for rights and liberties like Warren. Its the alamo for bigots.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 00100111
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:39pm
  Derp?
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:42pm
  So which amendment guarantees the right to gay marriage I missed that one which is it? The state of California doesn’t want to allow same sex marriage,they’re supposed to have a tenth amendment right to govern their state without the heavy hand of the federal government.
  
  Report this comment
- TEIN
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:43pm
  Yep, bigots…the majority of Calif. must fall into that category as well since the citizens of that state voted against same sex marriage!!!
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:23pm
  14th Amendment, after the tenth, guarantees equal protection under the law. Than there is the 9th Amendment which stands for the truth that not all rights enjoyed by the citizens are listed in the Constitution. Why do “constitution loving” conservatives always forget about the 9th and 14th.
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:40pm
  ENCINOM The 10th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. This amendment is pertinent to the discussion. The people voted now the feds want to impose their will on the people,just so we’re clear here.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:59pm
  @progressiveslayer you have a habit of changing the question when you don’t like the answer, you asked:
  “So which amendment guarantees the right to gay marriage I missed that one which is it?”
  Answer 9th and 14th.
  
  You can not argue the 10th amendment State’s rights to trump 14th Amendment protections. The 14th is aimed directly at the states and limits the powers of the states. The Civil rights Act is emplowered by the 14th Amendment to limit the 10th Amendment right of the States to ensure that laws are applied and designed to treat all citizens equally. Nor should, as a general practice, rights of an individual be left up to a popular vote, we are not a democracy, but a Republic.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 7:52pm
  Encinom – Then where are you on polygamy, polyandry, incest, and other alternative forms of marriage, hypocrite? You’re whining about same sex marriage but not other forms that are not recognized.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:57pm
  But the 14th ammendment ad to do with the children of ewly freed black slaves after the civil war.
  
  Are you telling me that freed slaves live for over 150 years?? If so, someone enslave me please!
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:39pm
  The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 9:57pm
  But the 14th ammendment ad to do with the children of ewly freed black slaves after the civil war.
  _____________________________
  No where in the language of the Amendment limits the Amendment to newly freed slaves and their children. The 14th Amendment demands that the state grant all its citizens equal protection under the law and limits the 10th Amendment, in that now the their is a qualifier prohibiting the States from acting in such a way that violates the Bill of Rights.
  
  Report this comment
neverending
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:32pm
If I were a betting person I would bet that they go for gay all the way! After obamacare and where this country is nothing surprises me anymore.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:57pm
  There is a difference between a right to marriage and the right to have marriage redefined to suit a certain sexual preference.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 8, 2012 at 2:19pm
  barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:57pm
  There is a difference between a right to marriage and the right to have marriage redefined to suit a certain sexual preference.
  ________________________
  No, the right to marry should included the right on consenting adults to choose their life partners. The confusion is with the religious fringe that seek to have the government limit the what is considered a marraige to conform to their religious views.
  
  Man has redefined marraige from the start, marraige was once nothing more than a property exchange, one daughter for three goats. The idea of marrying for love and not as arranged by one’s parents is a new concept.
  
  Report this comment
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 9, 2012 at 11:08pm
  Try to keep up, Encino.
  The Supreme Court case precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) and Baker v Nelson..
  
  All these cases establish expressley that marriage as traditionally defined in a fundemental consitutional right.
  
  In order to change a fundemental right proponents for same-sex “marriage” require a consitutional amendment.
  
  This is well established in case law and universally recognized by attorneys on both sides.
  
  As the New York State Supreme Court noted in Hernadez v Robles – “To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
TEIN
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:31pm
This should not be a ruling by a court!!! Marriage has always been defined by each state and not the federal government or the judicial system!!! Another case of Progressives imposing will by using the judicial system to impose a government created right to rule against the will of the people!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:49pm
  “Marriage has always been defined by each state and not the federal government or the judicial system!!! ”
  
  Actually, it’s been defined by each one of those. Each state has their own marriage laws and statutes. The federal government defines marriage as one man, one woman, and confers benefits only to those couples (DOMA). And the courts have a history of rulings on marriage, including older ones about interracial marriage bans and newer ones like those in CA finding that the restrictions on what couples can married are illegal.
  
  Now, if you wish to argue that ONLY states (and the people within them) should have a say, then I agree with you. Historically and realistically, that’s never how marriage has worked in the US though.
  
  On a separate note, are you arguing that only states should decide who gets married within that state, but are still fine with keeping federal benefits such as spousal insurance, tax reductions, and social security reception? Or are you arguing that only states should confer benefits as well as marriage status recognition and would advocate stripping federal benefits from all married couples?
  
  Report this comment
- Chet Hempstead
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:24pm
  That’s exactly what one of these cases is all about. DOMA was the federal government, not the states defining marriage. So according to your own stated principles, the Supreme Court should hear the arguments in favor of overturning it.
  
  Report this comment
- TEIN
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:25pm
  Referring to state laws of marriage…age, relation, by whom…the place where you get your marriage certificate and the place who recognizes other state marriage certificates has been left to the state….I am not appose to domestic partners having say and shared benefits…I appose an agenda to redefine marriage and have it as a government created right….
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:41pm
  @Tein
  
  “I am not appose to domestic partners having say and shared benefits”
  
  That’s where we diverge then. I don’t think any couple should receive federal benefits. I don’t think it’s within the federal government’s constitutional power to give benefits to some couples or all couples.
  
  But if the government’s going to do so (and let’s face it, they will; very few married couples would willingly give up their benefits right now even based on their principles), it might as well apply to all couples if their state declares them married.
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:31pm
The tenth amendment is alive and well,NOT. The feds have to stick their nose in state business all the time and it’s like the state houses aren’t needed let’s just defer to the lawbreakers in DC.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 5:04pm
  The equal proctection clause of the 14th Amendment trumps the powers of the 10th. The 14th Amendment limits the powers of the States, to ensure that laws are administered fairly and equally among the citizens.
  
  Report this comment
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 7:54pm
  Encinom – That also includes polygamists, polyandrists, incestous, and other alternative lifestyles by your standards, hypocrite.
  
  Report this comment
- barryswhitehalf
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 11:41pm
  Another example of how counterfeit marriage doesn’t “affect” anyone.
  
  http://annapolis.patch.com/articles/religious-wedding-vendors-seek-exemption-for-gay-marriages
  
  Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:30pm
Welcome to the slippery slope.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:24pm
Considering we have five activist justices who ensured Obama-care is the law of the land now, how can we expect anything but them favoring the gay-agenda?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- barber2
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:33pm
  SNOW: They’ll probably decide that gay marriage is a ” taxation issue.”
  
  Report this comment
- TSUNAMI_22
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 3:33pm
  Logical.
  
  Report this comment
- Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
  Posted on December 7, 2012 at 4:03pm
  @Barber:
  
  Given the radical nature of the Obama admin, if the SCOTUS upholds the matter, which I expect in favor of gay marriage, then Obama will probably ensure that such couples have many tax breaks so he and the democrats will win their support for future elections.
  
  Report this comment
- Ex_marine_dude_8313
  Posted on December 8, 2012 at 12:56am
  If they rule against you, they are always “activist” judges.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.